US Airways v. Sabre Holdings Corporation
US Airways, Inc., for American Airlines, Inc. as Successor and Real Party in Interest v. Sabre Holdings Corporation
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:11-cv-02725
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In US Airways v. Sabre, Judge Schofield granted agreed briefing, exhibit, and sealing requests for upcoming summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions.
US Airways, Inc., for American Airlines, Inc. as Successor and Real Party in Interest, and Sabre Holdings Corporation and the other defendants represented as Sabre.
What happened
US Airways, Inc., for American Airlines, Inc. as Successor and Real Party in Interest v. Sabre Holdings Corporation involved agreed requests about upcoming motions. Sabre planned to file a motion for summary judgment and a motion to exclude testimony from US Airways’s damages expert, Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz.
The parties asked to use up to 30 exhibits each, temporarily file the motion papers and supporting materials under seal, and brief the expert-testimony motion on the same schedule as the summary-judgment motion. They also requested page limits of 15 pages for the parties’ main expert-testimony briefs and seven pages for Sabre’s reply.
Judge Schofield granted the application. She allowed up to 30 exhibits and 225 exhibit pages per party, authorized provisional sealing until 30 days after briefing on all the motions, set the expert-testimony motion on the summary-judgment schedule, and approved the requested brief limits.
The detailed version
- US Airways v. Sabre Holdings Corporation · No. 1:11-cv-02725
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 14, 2021
Background
The parties submitted an uncontested request concerning limits and filing procedures for anticipated motion practice. Sabre intended to file a motion for summary judgment and, at the same time, a motion to exclude certain testimony from US Airways’s damages expert, Dr. Rosa Abrantes-Metz. The parties stated that the expert’s reports exceeded 150 pages without appendices and that the issues involved technical matters and the Supreme Court’s decision concerning two-sided transaction platforms in Ohio v. American Express.
Requests
The parties asked the court to:
- Allow each party to use up to 30 exhibits in support of or opposition to the summary-judgment motion. - Permit provisional filing under seal of the summary-judgment and expert-testimony motion papers, supporting documents, statements of undisputed facts, and exhibits until 30 days after all briefing was complete. - Schedule the expert-testimony motion on the same timetable as the summary-judgment motion. - Allow memoranda supporting and opposing the expert-testimony motion to be no more than 15 pages each, with a reply memorandum of no more than seven pages.
The parties explained that the papers would include third-party confidential information and information designated confidential by the opposing party. They proposed using the provisional-sealing period to confer about confidentiality and later submit sealing motions and proposed redactions.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the application. The court permitted each party to submit no more than 30 exhibits and no more than 225 pages of exhibits in connection with the summary-judgment briefing. The court also allowed provisional filing under seal until 30 days after briefing on all the summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions, after which the parties were required to file motions to seal and proposed redactions, if any.
The court required the expert-testimony motion to follow the same schedule as the summary-judgment motion. It limited the supporting and opposing memoranda to 15 pages each and the reply memorandum to seven pages. This order addressed motion-practice procedures and did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute or either anticipated motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.